A blog for current events

Posts from February 2009

[First posted Feb. 2009,-but the pundits are still pumping out the false distortion that Republican voters are divided between foreign policy conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal conservatives. And the media falsely painting evangelicals as only 'social conservatives'.]

When it comes to politics in America the media attempts to distort reality. This was certainly the case during the Republican primary campaign and remains so.

One of those media distortions was with respect to the large block of Evangelical Christian voters who overwhelmingly vote Republican.

We are constantly told that conservative Republicans are divided into three camps. Foreign policy conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and social conservatives. I submit that this is media distortion.

Such a thing suggests that conservatives who favor fiscal responsibility do not also desire a sound non-appeasement approach to foreign policy as well.

Or that Republicans who favor a sound non-appeasement approach to foreign policy, are not equally concerned about social issues as well.

The media has sought to portray Evangelical Republicans as "social conservatives" exclusively. Even using the terms Evangelical and social conservatives as interchangible.

The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of Christian Evangelicals are all-around solid conservatives. Who desire sound foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, and equal concern about social issues.

One would be hard pressed to find many Evangelicals who do not desire a sound non-appeasement approach to foreign policy as well as fiscal responsibility.

That being the case, the most reliably "solid conservatives" in the Republican party are the Evangelical Christian voters.

During the Republican primary campaign the vast majority of Evangelical voters supported Mike Huckabee. This blows the lid off of the media distortion, much of it by talk radio pundits, that Hucks appeal was only to "social conservatives".

Yes, the Republican party is divided. And I would submit that the real divide is not between foreign policy, fiscal, and social conservatives, but rather between Evangelical and non-Evangelical.

And the Republican primary results bare this out. The overwhelming vast majority of non-Evangelicals prefered Romney, Thompson, or McCain. In contrast, a clear majority of Evangelicals, [solid conservatives], prefered Huck.

This raises the important question as to why there is such a divide in the Republican party between Evangelical and non-Evangelical when the majority of both favor conservative positions.

A recent poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that 62% of Republicans felt that Israel was justified in launching it's counter-terror operation "Cast Lead" in response to repeated acts of terrorism from Islamists in Gaza:

To be sure, within that 62% of Republican support can be found those vast majority of Christian Evangelical voters. In fact, it would not be unreasonable to speculate that Christian supporters of Israel accounted for the majority of that 62% support.

It is no secret that outside the State of Israel, evangelicals are Israel's largest and most passionate supporters.

This is not good news. If the poll is reliably accurate it means that almost 40% of Republicans were not supportive of Israel's right to defend itself in a large scale counter-terror operation in Gaza.

And of that nearly 40% of Republicans who did not feel Israel was justified in launching their counter-terror operation, it would not be unreasonable to speculate the majority were non-Evangelical.

When taking a look at the positions of support for Israel among the Republican candidates for president one candidate stood out from all the rest. Mike Huckabee.

Only Mike Huckabee challanged the "Roadmap" and stated unequivacably a number of times that Israel should not be required to give up their land of Judea and Samaria for another "Palestinian" state.

Did Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, or Mark Levine spend any time talking about Hucks unique strong support for Israel?

Did the fact that the other Republican candidates all supported Bush's Roadmap policy to impose a Palestinian state on Israel's land not make any difference to them? If it did they didn't talk about it.

[It is believed that the Muslim American Society is a front group for Jaamat ul Fuqra. Another Islamist organization that has 35 compounds in the U.S.]

Many Virginians will remember that it was just September 2007 when Omeish tendered his resignation after being caught on tape telling a crowd of Muslim activists in DC that "jihad is the way..." As well as makiing radical statements denouncing Israel for it's counter-terrorism operation against Hizbullah.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will pledge $900 million in aid for Gazan Islamists who voted for Hamas and danced in the streets on 9/11.

The money will be to help rebuild parts of Gaza damaged as a result of Islamic terrorists drawing fire from the IDF after launching Grad missiles and Kassam rockets into Israel. And stockpiling munitions in civilian areas, including mosques.

A spokesman said the money will be distributed through various UN agencys. Which gives little assurance Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Army of Islam, and other Islamist terrorist factions will not benefit.

You cannot separate the people of Gaza from the terrorists. They are it's population. That is where they come from.

In addition, any rebuilding at this point is pre-mature as long as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terrorist factions continue there operations there.

Prime Minister designate Netanyahu has stated that the counter-terrorism offensive "Cast Lead" was ended too soon, and that Hamas needs to be defeated.

Would the U.S. government consider an aid package to help meet the "humanitarian needs" of Al-Qaeda? [none recomended either].

When Israel was conducting it's "Cast Lead" counter-terrorism operation in Gaza there was an outcry from politicians and diplomats the world over demanding Israel observe a cease-fire.

This week Iran will have a "pre-commissioning"launch of it's Russian built reactor:

"Iran will this week "pre-commission" its first nuclear power plant, which is being built by Russia in the southern city of Bushehr, local news agencies reported on Sunday. "

In addition, it was reported this past week that Iran now has enough enriched uranium to obtain one nuclear weapon of destructive capability equal to that used against Hiroshima.

No amount of "talking" or "aggressive diplomacy" will succeed in convincing the Islamist ideologically driven Iranian government to abandon it's present course.

The West needs to wake up out of it's slumber!

Now is the time for the U.S. and N.A.T.O. to coordinate an operation to "take out" Iran's nuclear sites.

The U.S. and N.A.T.O. certainly have the firepower and bunker busters to set Iran's nuclear program back to the stone age.

This is not a good option. There are no "good" options.

But the alternative of wasting time in "talking", time that is used by Iran to aggressively pursue it's nuclear agenda, will yield a far worse consequence to Europe and America if Iran succeeds in obtaining a nuke.

If Israel is forced to act alone,- it will constitute a moral indictment against the entire international community for failure to act.

In 1998 Iran test fired a missile that detonated after reaching an altitude of 180 miles. The ideal altitude for detonating an EMP nuclear weapon. The result of such an EMP attack would immediately devastate electrical grids. Communication would be virtually impossible. Most military systems would be rendered useless. No phones, no computers, etc.

In other words, the AP and other MSM are deliberately portraying Kadima and Livni as "reasonable", and Netanyahu and Likud as "unreasonable" and "extreme".

They have things the exact opposite of what they are.

Engaging in appeasement policies that embolden those who seek your destruction is not "reasonable". Or "moderate", if you prefer that word.

The official Palestinian Authority representative in Lebanon, Abbas Zaki, gave an interview to NBN-TV in which he reaffirmed the PLO Fatah's committment to the "Phased Plan." Hopefully the Associated Press writer will visit the link.

The problem is that some of Israel's leaders have attempted to achieve peace through the false delusion of appeasement policies. Such as the current Kadima led government.

Those appeasement "Roadmap" policies have greatly harmed Israel and been responsible for an increase in terrorism and not peace.

A clear majority of Israelis concurred with their support for Israeli parties opposed to any more appeasement concessions that are rewarded with more terror.

Netanyahu has pledged he will not make those same mistakes. Will not split apart Israel's capital of Jerusalem, engage in any unilateral withdrawls, or uproot thousands of Israelis from Judea and Samaria.

That is the position any "reasonable" or "moderate" Israeli leader, or for that matter, Obama, should take.

In other words, Netanyahu, Likud, National Union, and Jewish Home are the "moderates". While Livni, Kadima, Labor, and Meretz are "unreasonable" appeasers.

There is also a greater realization among Israelis that the conflict is really about Israel's very existence. In other words, the more Israel engages in appeasement concessions, the more Islamists are emboldened to continue pushing for more. With their ultimate goal being the destruction of the state of Israel and replacing it with "Palestine."

The AP and other MSM will not acknowledge the real cause of the conflict:

The global Islamist jihad.

In Islam this conflict is described as being between the "House of Islam" and the "House of War". That part of the world in which Islam is dominent and the laws are derived from it constitute the "House of Islam". In contrast, that part of the world in which Islam is not dominent, with control of governance, is refered to as the "House of War".

And Muslims believe they have a mandate to bring the non-Muslim world into the "House of Islam".

In the pursuit of accomplishing this they wage "jihad" on different levels.

There is political jihad,

[Phased Plan]. As well as enlisting international diplomatic pressure on Israel. For example the calls demanding Israel cease it's counter-terror operation against Hamas.

There is the propaganda jihad, [verbal jihad],

This includes an attempt to deligitimize Israel. The portraying of Geert Wilders as one that "incites racism and hatred" for his attempts at informing the public of the dangerous threat Islam poses to a free society.

The propaganda campaign against GITMO.

There is economic jihad, calls for boycotts against companies that do business in Israel is one example. "Oil" has been used as a weapon in this regard.

And violent jihad. The Islamist military invasion and "occupation" of the Middle East and north Africa in the 7th century. The attempted Islamist invasion and conquests of Europe.

And of course 9/11, all are examples of violent jihad with the objective being the submission of the West and non-Muslims to the "House of Islam".

"Just as he confounded former President Bill Clinton in the 1990's, Netanyahu probably will resist if Obama pushes too hard to extract Israeli concessions for peace in the Middle East." [For peace ?]

They think thats a negative. I think its a positive.

First off, Israel is not the party that needs to do any conceeding. And what concessions Israel has made for "peace", they recieved more terror attacks in return.

Steve Clemons, of the New America Foundation , was cited as saying,

" At the end of the day, Obama has to be willing to put the screws to Israel."

Such anti-Israel moonbats.

Contrary to what the biased MSM and Israel hating dhimmi diplomats and politicians say, Israel is not in occupation of any Arab land. For nearly two thousand years Israel's land was under foreign occupation. The Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Europeans, and British occupiers.

In the 7th century Arab Muslims conducted military invasions and "occupations" of north Africa and the broader Middle East. That is how the Muslims came to be in Judea and Samaria, through invasion and "occupation."

In 1947 a small slither of that land was returned to Israel under the UN Partition. The Arab Muslims were not content with 78% of the former British Palestine Mandate. They launched a war of extermination to drive the Jews into the sea.

In June of 1967 Egypt had massed a hundred thousand troops, preparing for another attempt to push the Jews into the sea.

But Israel's decisive preemptive offensive spoiled those plans.

Through out the article the writers never mention any concessions that the Islamists should make.

Secondly, if Obama does push the new Israeli government to engage in more appeasement surrender concessions under the Phased Plan/Roadmap policy, whether the new government is led by Netanyahu or someone else, they "should" resist.

Most Israelis now seem to realize that the politics of appeasement doesn't work. More appeasment concessions will only embolden the jihadists.

While the writers of that article meant it as a negative on Netanyahu, from my perspective, what they say sounds like a good endorsement. Israel needs a government that won't roll over for an appeasement minded Obama Administration.

Media Blackout"Western Funders Misled: Fatah still refuses to recognize Israel, PA's "recognition" only for International aid." This report should have a headline front and center on all major news sites.